20. Hostel: Part II (2007, Eli Roth)
By Eivind Langdal
10th November 2009

…includes spoilers for this film and the original

I saw Hostel, Part II not long after it was released, but decided it would be best to give it another go to find out exactly where I stand on the film. Ironically enough, I am still not sure exactly what I think of it. One of the problems is that, between my two viewings of the film, I saw Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs, another film belonging to the so-called “torture porn” genre. That was an effective movie. In fact, it was almost too effective in some ways (read more about why in my review of it, which was published earlier in this column). Now, while the Hostel films get a few things right that Martyrs don’t (I was never a fan of the semi-futuristic look of Martyrs, which, unlike the creepy dungeons in the Hostel films, doesn’t summon much dread), they are not better films.

Martyrs showed me how powerful the genre can be. It was merciless to its audience, and while it was never as violent in either of the Hostel films, it felt more cruel, as there was never a break long enough to let the audience get a chance to breathe before things started happening again. It feels odd calling the Hostel films merciful, but compared to Martyrs, that’s exactly what they are. But what else are they? Are they actually worth seeing? That depends. When you deal with such an extreme genre as torture porn, the usual rules of recommendation don’t apply. To some, it is simply too much. Therefore my review of Hostel, Part II will not focus so much on the violence as the direction, the writing, the acting and all the other things that we have learned are so crucial in movies.

If there is one thing I like about the film, it is that it doesn’t repeat the formula of the original. Sure, the three male backpackers have been replaced with a set of three female art students that aren’t drastically different than their counterparts, but there are other things going on too that justifies the making of this film. The most significant is the decision to let us know two of the torturers. Because he knows that he couldn’t play on the mystery of the hunting club twice, writer-director Eli Roth did the smarter thing and gives the audience a sneak peek into the hunting club organization. But it is not just a look into an organization. It is also a look into the darkest places of the human soul.

This works because we are given one of the creepiest scenes in both films, as wealthy businessmen all over the world frantically bid on their potential victims. The scene doesn’t have any blood, gore or anything to suggest it is scary, but as we see regular people on vacations, offices, golf courses and riding trips bid for a chance to brutally torture and kill innocent backpackers, a sense of dread becomes apparent. One of those businessmen is busy oiling in a woman on a beach when a text message appears on his cell phone showing his offers. The casual manner he has when replying to the message is disturbing, especially when considering the subject matter.

Still, despite being a richer film on an artistic level, I don’t think Hostel, Part II is better than the original. Before the inevitable last act kicks in, it feels a lot more like a regular horror film than I think it should be. What worked so well in the first film was its somewhat casual tone. The way things began as a dream and eventually turn into a nightmare was strangely effective. The thought of your friends just disappearing in the middle of a foreign land was realistic and very scary. In the second film, the audience is force-fed so much information that the mystery disappears. Sure, in my review of Hostel, I wrote how the film had uncommonly little mystery for its genre and instead depended on the audience knowing more than the character to create tension, but there was still a bit of uncertainty, even in the third act, and the information the audience received was given gradually, and not all at once. In Hostel, Part II, it is pretty much set in stone what is going to happen from the get-go. We don’t know the details, but it’s possible to figure them out without peeking in advance.

However, Hostel, Part II is a much more brutal film than its predecessor, much because of Roth’s decision to use female protagonists instead of male ones. The scene where Lorna (easily the most sympathetic character in the entire series) is tortured is brutal and incredibly hard to watch (some might say, based on that scene, that the film is misogynistic, but the chance of someone seeing this film and not cheering for the women is incredibly low). Another effective scene comes when all the characters are brought together during the “Harvest” festival. It is effective because so many things are left unsaid. If everyone attending the festival had laid the cards on the table and admitted exactly why they were there, there wouldn’t be much dancing.

Still, while Hostel, Part II, like its predecessor, is not a masterpiece, it is still a good horror film that doesn’t depend on false scares or winking at the camera for effect. Instead we have a stone cold film that, with its torture theme, is very relevant in these Abu Ghraib days. If the likes of The Last House on the Left and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre were artistic reactions to the Vietnam War, the Hostel films are a direct response to the Iraq war (something Roth himself made clear in a TV interview for the Fox News Channel that ended in a heated discussion about whether or not horror films are inspired by political environments). With the fear of terrorists at a massive high, the thought that there exists a secret organization that resides in a far-away country and specializes in letting anyone with a big wallet play with a human life is, to put it simple, very scary.